When did this resurgence of zombie moronity start, exactly? Was it the first "Resident Evil" movie? "28 Days Later"? I know zombies had been a minor thing for a while before the craze suddenly escalated again.

The really funny thing is when people confuse Progressivism (a really nasty political movement that ended up including eugenics and racism as major principles, along with prohibition and other inconveniently-non-liberal ideas) with "progress."

It's even more hilarious nowadays, since Progressivism fell out of favor for almost half a century - until the modern let-wingers started using the term again.

Saying the progressives are about progress is like saying conservatives are about conservation. The point is right from a historical perspective about progressive politics through. Research their history and you'll find some pretty scary stuff by modern standards. They also did some pretty good things as well, frankly I'm of the opinion that the old progressives were a hell of a lot better than the new ones. People have been putting forward progressive political agendas for well over a century. The result is it's had as much time to get a negative connotation as any other political agenda.

jafiwam:Considering Obama, the head of the democrats has gone on record sympathizing with a low-life thug bent on killing someone over "dissin" him.

It's not surprising people are realizing they'll have to defend themselves.

The Free Stuff Army wants your stuff, and they want it one way or another. When the system breaks down, they'll be looking to take matters into their own hands (more than they already do.)

Zombies are a fun disaster for entertainment purposes, what's going to come out of the cities when the economy collapses is much worse.

This. And it will happen sooner than many of you think. Statistical projections (similar to - but much more rigorous than - the Nate Silver projections regarding the election state that food riots in the United States could happen as soon as 2016-2017.

Reading that there has been a corresponding decrease in gun related crime makes me wonder if there has been a corresponding increase in accidental gunshot wounds. There are way too many people owning firearms who know nothing about safe handling of their weapon.

DragonNerd:The "Zombie apocalypse" is just a politically-correct, tongue-in-cheek way of saying what is more commonly called "S*** Hits the Fan": a short- to mid-term breakdown in infrastructure and order due to any number of causes, ranging from natural disasters (q.v., Hurricane Katrina) or a pandemic disease outbreak to a major social/economic/political crisis (q.v., Iraqi Civil War, American Civil War or, on a smaller scale, the 1992 LA riots).

Compare with TEOTWAWKI ("The End of the World As We Know It"), which is a long-term collapse of civilization and return to a pre-industrial (likely Dark Ages) lifestyle due to a more extreme disaster (like an asteroid strike).

// kind of looking forward to the Zombie Apocalypse/ not looking forward to TEOTWAWKI

Excellent summary. Given the fact that I live in FL, being a bit of a prepper is just good sense. Any given year we could get hit with a bug hurricane, and having a good bit of supplies on hand is a good idea. Should anything larger happen, its nice to know Ive got the ability to survive for a bit while figuring out the next move.

cirby:Mugato:I love when people try to use "progressive" as a negative.

The really funny thing is when people confuse Progressivism (a really nasty political movement that ended up including eugenics and racism as major principles, along with prohibition and other inconveniently-non-liberal ideas) with "progress."

It's even more hilarious nowadays, since Progressivism fell out of favor for almost half a century - until the modern let-wingers started using the term again.

So somebody derps about failed liberal policies and suddenly we're talking about eugenics and racism? If anyone was wondering why gerrymandering is the only way for conservatives to maintain political relevance these days, here's Exhibit A.

Mugato:WinoRhino: Either way, if I wake up in the middle of the night and there's a guy trying to steal my TV, he can have it. I'm not firing. I'm not getting a gun to protect my TV. It's illegal in my state to kill someone for that anyway. I'm getting the gun so if the guy sees that he woke me up and decided he still wants to take my shiat by going through me first, he's getting shot. On the other hand if he decides this wasn't a good idea and wants to leave, I'll simply point him to the door and he can do so. I hope you can see the difference between this and your example, and maybe tone down the "idiot" talk.

Hold on, let me get a pen. What's your address again?

I keed, I keed.

Many years ago in college, to make a point, I tried selling door signs signs that stated: "ATTENTION: We do not believe in killing other human beings. There are, therefore, no guns or other deadly weapons in this home."

The purpose, of course, was to allow anti-gun people to publicly display their ethics and thereby publicly "witness" and set personal examples for their beliefs. Curiously, those these were marketed at anti-gun rallies, I didn't sell a single sign. I even had several people lecture me in various ways, all of which boiled down to: "Are you nuts? Why would I want to advertise that fact to bad guys?"

This led me to the inexorable conclusion that anti-gun people rely for their own protection on the fact that some OTHER people are armed. Home invaders and other potential felons, therefore, may hesitate to transgress because they don't know which homes are armed and which are helpless.

This fact, of course, simply reassures and empowers nuts who want to create massacres at, for example, high schools and colleges which universally ban weapons from campus environs.

That is not to say that allowing weapons on campuses would not have it's own set of problems. But it seems fairly obvious that creating a zone of legally disarmed sheep will, in fact, encourage some people to take advantage of that fact.

NFA:sammyk: "The numbers seem to support his argument. In Virginia, for example, gun ownership soared 73% between 2006-2011. Over the same period gun related violent crimes actually fell 24 percent."

I'm guessing this trend had more to do with changes in gun carry laws than the election of president Obama. Although the NRA had done nothing but tell lie after lie stating that Obama has grand plans to confiscate guns and give the UN control of our gun ownership. They also put on the cover of American Rifleman, the claim that the best way to beat Obama was to purchase their "challenge coin". Seriously WTF?

Yet, despite Romney's long history of being a complete anti-gunner, including signing a ban of assault rifles and a ban on semi-autos, they endorsed him for president. I've been a life member of the NRA for 25 years and I'm seriously considering cancelling that membership. They've put hack partisan politics over gun rights as their main agenda.

Abox:cirby: Mugato:I love when people try to use "progressive" as a negative.

The really funny thing is when people confuse Progressivism (a really nasty political movement that ended up including eugenics and racism as major principles, along with prohibition and other inconveniently-non-liberal ideas) with "progress."

It's even more hilarious nowadays, since Progressivism fell out of favor for almost half a century - until the modern let-wingers started using the term again.

So somebody derps about failed liberal policies and suddenly we're talking about eugenics and racism? If anyone was wondering why gerrymandering is the only way for conservatives to maintain political relevance these days, here's Exhibit A.

Yeah lets talk about Gerrymandering and political distribution of parties along geographical lines.

How do Democrats have any senators at all?

Thats a joke, i understand the process, but ask yourself if its good for the 99% of the democratic party that isnt filthy stinking rich to be jammed into urban cores in the 47 months in a row that do not have a presidential election in them? They are lured there by better welfare and social benefits and then trapped there because it is easier for the Democratic Party to mobilize votes when all the votes they need live in a 10 square mile area in the state. Its a cynical treatment of the poor for the benefit of the political party.

You can look at gerrymandering maps of major cities and see the impact of this social policy. In order to secure the black vote the districts are tangled like spaghetti in major cities.

If you look at the map above you can see that a Republican candidate could in theory just plonk a compass down on the map and score a 99% red county district. Now individual politicians will of course gerrymander to link all the voters who traditionally support them because they want to be Murtha. So even within very red states you will find stranger districts based on the distribution of single issue voters.

bookman:Mugato: WinoRhino: Either way, if I wake up in the middle of the night and there's a guy trying to steal my TV, he can have it. I'm not firing. I'm not getting a gun to protect my TV. It's illegal in my state to kill someone for that anyway. I'm getting the gun so if the guy sees that he woke me up and decided he still wants to take my shiat by going through me first, he's getting shot. On the other hand if he decides this wasn't a good idea and wants to leave, I'll simply point him to the door and he can do so. I hope you can see the difference between this and your example, and maybe tone down the "idiot" talk.

Hold on, let me get a pen. What's your address again?

I keed, I keed.

Many years ago in college, to make a point, I tried selling door signs signs that stated: "ATTENTION: We do not believe in killing other human beings. There are, therefore, no guns or other deadly weapons in this home."

The purpose, of course, was to allow anti-gun people to publicly display their ethics and thereby publicly "witness" and set personal examples for their beliefs. Curiously, those these were marketed at anti-gun rallies, I didn't sell a single sign. I even had several people lecture me in various ways, all of which boiled down to: "Are you nuts? Why would I want to advertise that fact to bad guys?"

This led me to the inexorable conclusion that anti-gun people rely for their own protection on the fact that some OTHER people are armed. Home invaders and other potential felons, therefore, may hesitate to transgress because they don't know which homes are armed and which are helpless.

This fact, of course, simply reassures and empowers nuts who want to create massacres at, for example, high schools and colleges which universally ban weapons from campus environs.

That is not to say that allowing weapons on campuses would not have it's own set of problems. But it seems fairly obvious that creating a zone of legally disarmed sheep will, in fact, encourage some people to take advantage of that fact.

Or you could have an organized neighborhood watch and a well-functioning police department.

I have no problem with people in isolated areas having individual protection. But a properly running town or city should have a good communal security system in place -- not paranoid homeowners who are itching to play the John Wayne in their cul-de-sac.

If you're going to try and take the credit for early 20th century Progressive successes, you also have to take the blame for the really nasty parts.

For example, when people talk about good old Progressive Margaret Sanger, they push the "she made birth control available" part, but sorta gloss over "she made it available because she thought minorities and poor people were breeding too much."

If you're going to try and take the credit for early 20th century Progressive successes, you also have to take the blame for the really nasty parts.

For example, when people talk about good old Progressive Margaret Sanger, they push the "she made birth control available" part, but sorta gloss over "she made it available because she thought minorities and poor people were breeding too much."

Nasty people, those Progressives.

Yeah, that bullsh*t makes me angry every time I recall it.

Thanks for the reminder. If we forget our history we will only repeat and worsen our faults.

And isn't it interesting that "minorities and poor people are breeding too much" is these days a complaint of folks who wouldn't be seen dead hanging around an ACLU office.

Just think about exactly where and by whom these anti-brownfolk complaints are being generated these days.

bonobo73:I have no problem with people in isolated areas having individual protection. But a properly running town or city should have a good communal security system in place -- not paranoid homeowners who are itching to play the John Wayne in their cul-de-sac.

Thanks, Bonobo, that's mighty nice of you. :-P I'd prefer, rather, to just exercise my rights regardless of whether or not you think that I'm...what, "mature enough" to exercise them? Even in cities, though, the police have no accountability for individual citizens' deaths. Oh, they'll be there with the "POLICE LINE DO NOT CROSS" tape and chalk to mark where your body was found, but ultimately your life is most important to you; if you don't take measure to safeguard it, that's your fault. To deprive people of the means to defend their own lives is violating them.

hundreddollarman:tallen702: 1) Fear of a new assault weapons ban without a sunset provision (which wouldn't happen for at least 2 more years due to congressional make-up right now)

As some posts have mentioned upthread, Obama's reelection has been the best thing that has happened to the gun industry in a while. I never understood why gun owners think the industry is necessarily on their side. To the extent they would like to continue to sell us their products, yes they are. But if needlessly raising a panic with "Obama's gonna take your guns" wharrgarbl will send sales through the roof, then that's what they'll do.

What is really interesting, and confusing, is that you aren't seeing massive price jumps on the manufacturing side of things. You'd think that the "panic buying" would cause places like PSA, DSA, CMMG, and Troy as well as the big-boys to increase prices or ramp up production, but you simply aren't. The price increase we've been seeing are on the Retail and secondary markets. With an 03-FFL, I get to see a lot of wholesale pricing, even for the ones which aren't eligible for me to transfer, and they really aren't going up. But the guys at the gun shops and shows are pocketing a lot more, so I don't think you can really pin anything on the industry as a whole.

Personally, I'm not terribly concerned with a new ban being implemented, but I do know it still is a possibility, especially if you see a shift toward the dems in the mid-term elections.

If you're going to try and take the credit for early 20th century Progressive successes, you also have to take the blame for the really nasty parts.

Good luck with that. The whole reason the liberals themselves attached wheels to the definition of "liberal" was so they could take credit for the momentary happiness their social policies create, then steer away from the blame when their systems inevitably collapse into mass graves.

/and of course they'll insist their policies weren't the cause//it has to have been sabotage by Goldstein, err Romney, that's causing the shortages

Keizer_Ghidorah:When did this resurgence of zombie moronity start, exactly? Was it the first "Resident Evil" movie? "28 Days Later"? I know zombies had been a minor thing for a while before the craze suddenly escalated again.

Resident Evil is the start of the modern zombie craze after the 70's, yeah. With the vidyagames, first, and then the movie made it more popular with the strong heroine. It's pretty much a horror mash-up of "who's my friend, who's my enemy?" type horror as well as happy fun monster horror along with a dose of Evil Science, so there's no reason for it to not be popular. Pretty much the only horror vibe it doesn't touch is sexy horror.

Deacon Blue:NFA: Pud: Well, is anyone actually worried about those sparkly vampires? The werewolves are just kindred souls, and witches are just misunderstood. Now the zombies on the other hand .....

Believe it or not, you can buy both silver plated bullet AND zombie loads. Seriously are gun owners really that stupid? Some gun ranges also hold zombie shoots.

No, nobody actually believes that zombies are real. It's just fun, and you aren't going to hurt anyone's feelings, like if you had a ginger shoot. Plus, if you're prepared for the zombie apocalypse, you're prepared for just about anything, including earthquakes, floods, plagues, etc... It fact, the CDC published a 'zombie preparedness' pamphlet, for that very reason. It's a fun way to game out disaster scenarios without getting all upset because floods, earthquakes, fires and plagues can actually happen and kill people. Sure, there's the occasional nutcase that takes it too far, but for the most part it's all fun and games with the added benefit of actually learning how to survive a disaster that could really happen.

The only flaw in that line of reasoning is that surviving a natural disaster and surviving a zombie apocalypse require opposing skill sets. The response to a zombie apocalypse would entail destroying as many attackers as possible. In an actual disaster scenario such as Hurricane Katrina, this type of thinking causes enormous, real problems when freaked-out, paranoid survivalists start shooting at everything that moves and end up adding civil strife to natural destruction. Real-world disaster preparedness needs cooperation and calm, not wild aggression, and the assortment of zombie-killing weaponry is next to useless against flood, fire or earthquake.

Metalithic:The only flaw in that line of reasoning is that surviving a natural disaster and surviving a zombie apocalypse require opposing skill sets. The response to a zombie apocalypse would entail destroying as many attackers as possible. In an actual disaster scenario such as Hurricane Katrina, this type of thinking causes enormous, real problems when freaked-out, paranoid survivalists start shooting at everything that moves and end up adding civil strife to natural destruction.

In terms of shooting zombies...which is usually the focus of zombie movies/games, yeah, that's true. But for things like disaster exercises practiced by the National Guard, et al, it's useful as a mental exercise to think about alternatives within or instead of local infrastructure. Whether the power station is inaccessible because of the zombie hordes, flooding, or earthquake damage, the solutions for getting localities up and running are very similar in the short term.

On a more personal basis...looters are a potential danger in the anarchy that follows, so having some small arms isn't a terrible idea. But again on an infrastructure tack, having several days' food and water isn't a bad idea. Being able to take your important things on the move is a good idea, too, if one's home becomes untenable.

I joke about the zombpocalypse, but really I'm more worried about possible economic collapse, and REALLY more worried about some random drunk/high/criminal person busting into my house and trying to do... something... while I'm asleep. Oddly, lately, I am awake most of the night, so it's kind of a foolish fear, but if I were working a normal job again, it would be completely rational, I think.

I know my basement is a possible entry point for example, but we don't have the cash to completely replace the all windows with secure ones, so it's a risk we have to live with =/

stevarooni:Metalithic: The only flaw in that line of reasoning is that surviving a natural disaster and surviving a zombie apocalypse require opposing skill sets. The response to a zombie apocalypse would entail destroying as many attackers as possible. In an actual disaster scenario such as Hurricane Katrina, this type of thinking causes enormous, real problems when freaked-out, paranoid survivalists start shooting at everything that moves and end up adding civil strife to natural destruction.

In terms of shooting zombies...which is usually the focus of zombie movies/games, yeah, that's true. But for things like disaster exercises practiced by the National Guard, et al, it's useful as a mental exercise to think about alternatives within or instead of local infrastructure. Whether the power station is inaccessible because of the zombie hordes, flooding, or earthquake damage, the solutions for getting localities up and running are very similar in the short term.

On a more personal basis...looters are a potential danger in the anarchy that follows, so having some small arms isn't a terrible idea. But again on an infrastructure tack, having several days' food and water isn't a bad idea. Being able to take your important things on the move is a good idea, too, if one's home becomes untenable.

To clarify, I see nothing wrong with keeping survival supplies and small arms just in case. In fact, being prepared for many types of disaster is a good idea. The problem is when the urge becomes mindless killing, and I think the attraction of the zombie scenario for many gun fanciers is that it would be an opportunity for mass killing without worrying about laws or ethics. I worry that after years of zombie massacring fantasies, some extreme individuals might, if a natural disaster kept the police occupied, easily turn to slaughtering the "undesirables" in their neighborhood or anyone they saw as different. I remember hearing stories of certain folks hunting African-Americans for sport after Hurricane Katrina.

Metalithic:I worry that after years of zombie massacring fantasies, some extreme individuals might, if a natural disaster kept the police occupied, easily turn to slaughtering the "undesirables" in their neighborhood or anyone they saw as different. I remember hearing stories of certain folks hunting African-Americ ...

I can understand the concern, but I'd say that the "zombie fantasy" is going to be a lot less dangerous...relatively speaking...than violent video games involving recognizably human enemies. People fantasizing about Red Dawn scenarios, that kind of thing. Those who would go into Lord of the Flies mode when things go bad are probably kind of on the edge already.

stevarooni:Metalithic: I worry that after years of zombie massacring fantasies, some extreme individuals might, if a natural disaster kept the police occupied, easily turn to slaughtering the "undesirables" in their neighborhood or anyone they saw as different. I remember hearing stories of certain folks hunting African-Americ ...

I can understand the concern, but I'd say that the "zombie fantasy" is going to be a lot less dangerous...relatively speaking...than violent video games involving recognizably human enemies. People fantasizing about Red Dawn scenarios, that kind of thing. Those who would go into Lord of the Flies mode when things go bad are probably kind of on the edge already.

True. Although a lot of gamers would be too scared to do anything in real life, whereas the redneck survivalist types are generally more used to firing at actual living targets. I'm sure many of the Red Dawn fanboys (or /b/tards for that matter) would love to participate in some real-world mayhem, but not all of them could "hack it," so to speak.

starsrift:"They're defending themselves because they know that even though the police try to do a real good job...when seconds count as they say the police are minutes are away. People have decided 'Hey I can't wait for the cavalry to come to my rescue I've got to defend myself and my family and my home,'" he said.

Don't be an idiot. Criminals don't want to fark with you or your family, they want your 52" TV and laptop and jewelry.

Me, I'm not sure I could live with killing someone for wanting to steal a TV. Imported Chinese electronics just don't matter to me that much, I guess.

DragonNerd:The "Zombie apocalypse" is just a politically-correct, tongue-in-cheek way of saying what is more commonly called "S*** Hits the Fan": a short- to mid-term breakdown in infrastructure and order due to any number of causes, ranging from natural disasters (q.v., Hurricane Katrina) or a pandemic disease outbreak to a major social/economic/political crisis (q.v., Iraqi Civil War, American Civil War or, on a smaller scale, the 1992 LA riots).

Compare with TEOTWAWKI ("The End of the World As We Know It"), which is a long-term collapse of civilization and return to a pre-industrial (likely Dark Ages) lifestyle due to a more extreme disaster (like an asteroid strike).

// kind of looking forward to the Zombie Apocalypse/ not looking forward to TEOTWAWKI

rugby-n-beers:You do realize that gun rights have expanded under Obama, don't you?

Please, the Right has been operating on a fact-free basis for the last decade. Don't confuse them now.

If you really want to see their heads asplode, tell them that Rmoney has a worse gun control record than Obama. Of course they won't believe you, but the cognitive dissonance in their faces when you list all the anti-gun measure their savior enacted when he was Governer is priceless.

rugby-n-beers:You do realize that gun rights have expanded under Obama, don't you?

While I like to point that out to the extreme right wingers I know, the only things he has had an effect on (firearms as cargo on AMTRAK trains, legal carry in national forests) were rider amendments on bills he was already going to sign, no ifs and or buts, such as the credit card reform bill.

ficklefkrfark:usbport: Well, let's face it, 'zombies' is an analogy to 'welfare recipients' -- parasites who want to eat your brains and devour your life essence. So, yeah, buying a gun can make a lot of sense when you see what's happening in the news.

Yeah man, shoot those single moms and their babies right in their zombie faces....if they hadn't of been such life sucking drains on society maybe their baby daddy would've been able to stick around to make em a real family./you realize a shiat ton of people on welfare are poor white trash that prob hate libruls/socialist/obummer as much as you

archichris:Abox: cirby: Mugato:I love when people try to use "progressive" as a negative.

The really funny thing is when people confuse Progressivism (a really nasty political movement that ended up including eugenics and racism as major principles, along with prohibition and other inconveniently-non-liberal ideas) with "progress."

It's even more hilarious nowadays, since Progressivism fell out of favor for almost half a century - until the modern let-wingers started using the term again.

So somebody derps about failed liberal policies and suddenly we're talking about eugenics and racism? If anyone was wondering why gerrymandering is the only way for conservatives to maintain political relevance these days, here's Exhibit A.

Yeah lets talk about Gerrymandering and political distribution of parties along geographical lines.

[newscastmedia.com image 568x414]

How do Democrats have any senators at all?

Thats a joke, i understand the process, but ask yourself if its good for the 99% of the democratic party that isnt filthy stinking rich to be jammed into urban cores in the 47 months in a row that do not have a presidential election in them? They are lured there by better welfare and social benefits and then trapped there because it is easier for the Democratic Party to mobilize votes when all the votes they need live in a 10 square mile area in the state. Its a cynical treatment of the poor for the benefit of the political party.

You can look at gerrymandering maps of major cities and see the impact of this social policy. In order to secure the black vote the districts are tangled like spaghetti in major cities.

If you look at the map above you can see that a Republican candidate could in theory just plonk a compass down on the map and score a 99% red county district. Now individual politicians will of course gerrymander to link all the voters who traditionally support them because they want to be Murtha. So even within very red states you will find stranger districts ...

The funny thing is, what you're seeing on that map *is* a result of gerrymandering... largely by "republican" held state governments "redistricting" to gain more seats in the House of Representatives in Washington DC.

Also, people who live in cities tend to work with their minds. People in rural areas work with their bodies. To put a finer point on it; country living = rubes = republicans.

/sorry, there are exceptions to the rule, present company, etc./anecdotal: Half the gun owners I know (6 of 12) are nuttier than a fruitcake... and to a man "conservative" low information voters./Thank FSM this election season is over and I can remove all the blocks on emails/people who whine about welfare have a weak grasp of economics.

spidermilk:All those guns you're buying are not going to help because I don't think the thieves are going to break in while you're home.And if you don't have a nice gun safe they'd be happy to steal your guns too...

you don't NEED lots of guns. You need ONE gun with a shiatload of ammo. How hard is this to understand?

Begoggle:Millennium: I see the zombie-apocalypse preppers as not so much afraid as just participating in a gigantic leaderless LARP. As long as their intended targets are not (living) people, I have no problem with this.

And as long as they hit only their intended targets.Everybody with a gun thinks they are James Bond or Clint Eastwood.

archichris:Abox: cirby: Mugato:I love when people try to use "progressive" as a negative.

The really funny thing is when people confuse Progressivism (a really nasty political movement that ended up including eugenics and racism as major principles, along with prohibition and other inconveniently-non-liberal ideas) with "progress."

It's even more hilarious nowadays, since Progressivism fell out of favor for almost half a century - until the modern let-wingers started using the term again.

I look at that map and wonder how Obama got re-elected. Then I look at it again and realize it was all you dumb city farks who re-elected him.

Abacus9:DragonNerd: The "Zombie apocalypse" is just a politically-correct, tongue-in-cheek way of saying what is more commonly called "S*** Hits the Fan": a short- to mid-term breakdown in infrastructure and order due to any number of causes, ranging from natural disasters (q.v., Hurricane Katrina) or a pandemic disease outbreak to a major social/economic/political crisis (q.v., Iraqi Civil War, American Civil War or, on a smaller scale, the 1992 LA riots).

Compare with TEOTWAWKI ("The End of the World As We Know It"), which is a long-term collapse of civilization and return to a pre-industrial (likely Dark Ages) lifestyle due to a more extreme disaster (like an asteroid strike).

// kind of looking forward to the Zombie Apocalypse/ not looking forward to TEOTWAWKI

John Buck 41:you don't NEED lots of guns. You need ONE gun with a shiatload of ammo. How hard is this to understand?

Not true, guns are specialized.

The closest you can get to a one-gun-does-everything is a 12-gauge with interchangeable barrels. With the right set of barrels and shot shells you can use it for everything from self-defense to hunting large and small game. It's the multi-tool of firearms: It might not be ideal for all of those roles but it will do the job in a pinch.

clyph:John Buck 41: you don't NEED lots of guns. You need ONE gun with a shiatload of ammo. How hard is this to understand?

Not true, guns are specialized.

The closest you can get to a one-gun-does-everything is a 12-gauge with interchangeable barrels. With the right set of barrels and shot shells you can use it for everything from self-defense to hunting large and small game. It's the multi-tool of firearms: It might not be ideal for all of those roles but it will do the job in a pinch.

You're correct regarding your 'specialized' comment (as well as the 12 gauge remark), however I was referring to the mania of buying all kinds of guns but skimping on what goes in them. A gun safe full of one of everything is worthless w/o the appropriate amount of ammo